Obama Bypasses Congress With Executive Order To Stop Deporting Young Illegals

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration will stop deporting and begin granting work permits to younger illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children and have since led law-abiding lives.

As anyone who reads me knows, I agree with this. But I don’t agree with an executive order to do it. This President loves bypassing the constitution, and doing what he wishes with executive order. Democrats will not be happy when a future Republican does the same with controversial issues. This is not how we should do things, and we all know that.

Marco Rubio, who has been working on a GOP type Dream Act (which probably had a lot to do with today’s announcement), had this to say:

“Today’s announcement will be welcome news for many of these kids desperate for an answer, but it is a short-term answer to a long-term problem,” Rubio said in a statement. “And by once again ignoring the Constitution and going around Congress, this short-term policy will make it harder to find a balanced and responsible long-term one.”

The article goes on:

The move comes in an election year in which the Hispanic vote could be critical in swing states like Colorado, Nevada and Florida. While Obama enjoys support from a majority of Hispanic voters, Latino enthusiasm for the president has been tempered by the slow economic recovery, his inability to win congressional support for a broad overhaul of immigration laws and by his administration’s aggressive deportation policy. Activists opposing his deportation policies last week mounted a hunger strike at an Obama campaign office in Denver, and other protests were planned for this weekend.

………………………………..

“President Obama and his administration once again have put partisan politics and illegal immigrants ahead of the rule of law and the American people,” Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, GOP chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said in a statement.

Another reason Pres. Obama may have come out with this now is what the Texas GOP is doing.

Texas Republicans are touting their success in bringing the factions of their party together last week in Fort Worth to approve a new plank in the party platform aimed at effective changes in immigration policy.

They call their guest worker program the “Texas solution” and say it offers answers instead of “another litany of problems,” said Brad Bailey, a member of the platform subcommittee that drafted the plan.

The proposal would provide a way for illegal immigrants to have legal status — and possibly more important to the party right now, it could pull into Republican ranks conservative Hispanic voters who could not abide the harsh deportation policies of former Republican state platforms.

Under the new, gentler proposal, “We no longer call it ‘illegal immigration,’” said Norman Adams, a Houston insurance broker who co-founded Texans for Sensible Immigration Policy a decade ago. “For the first time, the Republican Party actually offers a solution. In the past our only solution was for them to leave.”

The plank offers conditions immigrants would have to satisfy to participate: pass a criminal background check, pay any immigration fine, carry private or workplace health insurance, waive government assistance, know English, pass a civics class and be subject to payroll taxes. But Adams said the requirements would not discourage illegal immigrants from applying.

I guess it will take election year politics in a close election to finally force both parties to seriously look at our immigration problems. For too long we have let the extremes of both parties define our positions. It’s time for calm rational compromise.

This is what I wrote back in April regarding Marco Rubio’s version of the Dream Act, and asking if the GOP would drop the ball on immigration once again:

“Illegal immigration is a problem of our own making. We ignored the laws, we ignored the consequences, because we liked having a cheap work force. Now, we have children of illegal immigrants, not born here, but brought here very young, going to college, in the only country they have ever known. This has created a different part of the illegal immigration issue. These are not people who snuck in this country of their own volition illegally. They were brought here by their parents. They were educated here. They are, for all intent and purposes, Americans, just as the children born here of illegal immigrants. Now, many of them have graduated college and are still not legal. What should we do? Deport them? Where? To a country they have never known? We have to face this issue. It’s an important one to the Hispanic community. I think Rubio is doing what he knows to be right, and whether you completely agree with him as a conservative, you need to support him here.”

Marco Rubio had been meeting with activist on both sides to hammer out a compromise. I wrote this as well, and it has turned out to prophetic:

“Of course, senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett, has met with the activists Rubio has talked with, and encouraged them to not deal with Rubio. We can’t have the Democrats not having that wedge issue for the election, right?

The GOP allowed loud anti immigrant voices to turn the public against George Bush’s perfectly reasonable compromise on illegal immigration when he was President. I can only hope they don’t make the same mistake again.”

A year ago, I wrote this:

“The bottom line is if the GOP doesn’t deal with the millions of illegal immigrants in this country in a humane and compassionate way, we will lose generations of voters. But we shouldn’t do it just for that reason. We should do it because it’s what is right. Seal the borders. Deal with illegal immigrants that are here now once and for all. This is our window of opportunity.”

Finally, I posted this 1980 debate between George Bush 41 and Ronald Reagan on the illegal immigration issue. I wrote then, that “if only we had listened to either one of them, or if they had found a way to achieve those things while they were President, we wouldn’t find ourselves in the mess we are in now. But I think you will see in the passion of George Bush’s voice, his love and understanding for the Hispanic culture. We could use a bit more of that understanding in the GOP right now.”

I know many conservatives disagree with me. I understand their arguments and their concerns, but I also know that it’s time for some solutions, way past time.

Author: KATHLEEN MCKINLEY, Guest Voice Columnist

22 Comments

  1. Executive Orders:
    George W. Bush – 288
    Barack Obama – 115

    Selective outrage is a sure sure fire way in determining who is / is not a partisan hack.

  2. “Selective outrage is a sure sure fire way in determining who is / is not a partisan hack”

    Amen!

    Also, talk about “rapid response.”

  3. Selective outrage is a sure sure fire way in determining who is / is not a partisan hack.

    I agree, although probably not in the same way you do.

  4. http://www.archives.gov/federa.....ition.html

    Carter 319…80 per year ave
    RR…380..48 ave per yr
    Bush 41…165..41 ave per yr
    Clinton..363 45 ave per yr
    Bush 43..290 36 ave per yr
    Obama..126 42 ave per yr

    Just remember, figures don’t lie but liars can figure. When taken into account the number of years in office, all are within a specific range except Carter.

    So both sides need to cool their heal on this one issue.

    But is using executive orders the answer to this problem? Rubio, no matter what your political views does have some logical arguements when he speacks of issues facing todays America. How many politicians on either side use logic when expressing a position?

  5. “Illegal” is not a noun. Using it as such is pretty damn offensive, actually.

  6. Wow that actually does sound like the GOP is attempting to come up with a concrete solution with a touch of compromise on immigration issues. I have to say this is the first reasonable thing I’ve heard from from them in a while. I do think the requirement to carry insurance is going to be a lot to ask of someone making minimum wage or lower, but its an actual start. It’s never going to fly in its current state I don’ think, but its a nice sign.

    Also, I’ve never really understood executive orders. They have always seemed to me like an end run around checks and balances.

  7. The past frequency of executive order use has no bearing on whether it was appropriate or inappropriate in this situation.

  8. “The past frequency of executive order use has no bearing on whether it was appropriate or inappropriate in this situation.”

    Very true.

  9. The use of executive orders is somewhat like a recall for not liking someone position on issues.

    executive orders should not be a end around congress nor should recalls be used to remove politicians just because you don’t like their legislative positions.

    But both are used for the wrong reasons and will continue to be sued for those purposes for years to come.

  10. Typo. “Used for those purposes, not sued.

    Where is the edit function?

  11. Executive Orders:
    George W. Bush – 288
    Barack Obama – 115

    Selective outrage is a sure sure fire way in determining who is / is not a partisan hack.

    Well, the issue isn’t whether a President uses executive orders, it is whether he can substitute his power for that of Congress (which Bush did come under criticism for). However, there is an underlying attitude that I think should be considered, to lets assume “Executive Order = Did a “bad thing”.

    The premise seems to be that Obama shouldn’t be criticized because of Bush did the “bad thing” more. (I don’t think many would read the comment as just saying “the article was completely right in criticizing Obama, I just wish it had mentioned Bush also”, if I apologize but also suggest that the commenter might consider how it might have been better worded). Does this mean that Obama can’t be criticized until he does the “bad thing” in question 173 more times?Does one party have no responsibility to act properly as long as someone else was “worse”? Regardless of this specific comment, this actually seems to be the premise in many (most?) of the controversies these days. And, if course, if Obama were to overshoot 288, the Republicans then give themselves a pass up to whatever number Obama reached. This is why I say that one thing partisanship is about is both parties, in a weird synergistic way, enabling each other for both to avoid responsibility for their actions.

  12. Kathleen McKinley wrote: “I wrote this as well, and it has turned out to prophetic:

    “Of course, senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett, has met with the activists Rubio has talked with, and encouraged them to not deal with Rubio. We can’t have the Democrats not having that wedge issue for the election, right?”

    So…. Obama is using illegal immigration as a wedge issue? The majority of Republicans I know wish these people would leave the country since they are not US citizens and these Republicans consider them to be a drain on US resources.

    So yes, I guess it is a wedge issue since Republicans generally want them out and Democrats generally want to be sensible and have them stay. At least Obama is true to his Democratic roots for issuing this.

  13. I guess it will take election year politics in a close election to finally force both parties to seriously look at our immigration problems. For too long we have let the extremes of both parties define our positions. It’s time for calm rational compromise.

    Here it is again, the absurd notion that both parties are to blame for the gridlock in Washington.

    I am racking my memory to find an example of Democrats that are extreme on immigration. I don’t even know how the Democrats would be extreme on immigration. Would a pro-union, pro-labor Democrat call for virtual open borders? I don’t think so. Or would part of the more socially conscious party agree with the Republicans and support rounding up and kicking out 12 million mostly law abiding, tax paying people who are guilty of a class 3 misdemeanor, one step more serious than say a traffic ticket.

    But Ms. McKinley should be able to provide us with numerous examples of Democrats who are extreme on immigration. She after all is the one who is making the argument that the Democrats and the Republicans are both letting the extremes of their party define their positions on immigration.

    Today’s myths can turn into tomorrow’s wisdom.

  14. “But Ms. McKinley should be able to provide us with numerous examples of Democrats who are extreme on immigration.”

    Don’t hold your breath merkin.

  15. It probably no longer matters that anyone calls human beings ‘illegals’, the damage is done, and we Latinos have not forgotten the brace of names we bow under that are demeaning and scornful and de-facing of us as individual souls.

    I’d mention today was a turning point, a no turning back ‘turning point.’ Today we “Latinos” held local caucuses to discuss the GOP outrage over Obama’s move which is YEARS overdue for anyone who knows the history of Mexican and Central American immigration starting with the braceros programs and subsequent egregious deportations at government’s convenience… and there will be thousands and tens of thousands more caucuses/gatherings in days to come… of Latinos who just arent going to take this inhumane way of speaking about human beings any more.

    In our caucus there was unanimous avvering that there is no way the Latino vote of those of us who are US citizens, either born or naturalized, is going to a party or any candidate that publicly or privately defines us as unworthy, calls our children and us names, states that our kinship relationships are less important that those of the ruling classes, (as noted by the obstructionism by GOP of the family reunification act ). We are discussing in depth the many kinds of exploitation of “Illegals” and naturalized Latinos by the ruling class/manufacturing/food corporation owners who hypocritically and loudly proclaim they are against us being here. Right. As soon as the corps and owners and shareholders take the lion’s share whilst exploiting the bones and blood of those far more poor. This is not even close to sitting well with us. We are in the millions in this country, registered voters who are GOP’s worst nightmare: EDUCATED and LEGAL Latinos, and we willl lead our less educated brothers and sisters to stop bowing as our grandparents did, but to push back instead.

    Today, we affirmed that the main way we are going to push back is not to vote for any GOP candidate. Most of us have for decades voted for the person we thought best suited rather than by party. That changed today. Across the internet today, the harsh words for immigrants and Obama, by GOP blabbers and bloggers, by government officials belonging to the GOP, cemented the deal. The GOP has made strong, educated and gifted Latinos today, turn away from them. Likely not only for generations to come, but similar to the outcome of GOP insulting and deriding and supporting injustices of the most inhumane kind to blacks who still have long, long memory of the separate but equal hogwash days… meaning forever. There may be a few token latinos who the GOP point to as fully supporting them, but chances are very good, beyond merely good that the majority of Latinos will not join in deriding their own kin via the GOP’s words and actions, or lack of action in service of humane treatment for all. Right now where I live, the city is nearly 33% Latino, many professionals, many highly educated, many working class. Ten years ago it was around 12%. THe GOP hasnt bothered apparently to tot up the numbers. But, we have. We are a huge and strong voting block.

    We dont have a vote for anyone who wants to talk ‘immigrants’ without a human face. We have names. We have families. We have had it with those who think we’re just pawns to move around on their board. This isnt a game. It’s families of actual human beings. Immigration law is a purposefully and carefully constructed Scylla and Charybdis by those in a decades’ long do-nothing Congress re plausible and fair and unobstructed following of even the CURRENT laws for immigration, again family reunification is a costly JOKE. On purpose. Cheap labor without bennies. Who dreamt that up and declined to straighten it out in all deference to justice. We know who. And none of them will have our votes.

    Thanks for listening.

  16. I listened and I could not agree more, Dr. E.

    Well said and very true.

    Yes, there “may be a few token latinos who the GOP point to as fully supporting them, but chances are very good, beyond merely good that the majority of Latinos will not join in deriding their own kin via the GOP’s words and actions, or lack of action in service of humane treatment for all.”

    Reminds me of the few token gays whom the GOP point to — Log Cabin Republicans — who I will never be able to comprehend why they support the Party that oppresses them, rejects them, ridicules them,’delegitimatizes’ them,demonizes them …

  17. Dr. E, thank you and well said. To me the Republican Party is about treating people as second class citizens… and second class human beings, whether it’s blacks, Latinos, women, gays, poor people, or….

    I find it particularly hypocritical because conservatives claim to be Christians and follow the Bible. Yet even the best Christian citizens still vote for representatives who do not treat many humans and citizens with respect. They take away rights of citizens on purely “religious” grounds….

    I honestly do not know why anyone who truly values humans and Christian teachings would vote for any Republican.

  18. And of course the economic plans of the two candidates reflect their priorities. The Republicans believe that giving corporations more tax breaks will increase profits (it’s true, more money will stay with the corporation) and more profits mean that companies can hire.

    The Democratic Party believes that companies will hire if there is demand for products. Obama wants to put more money in the hands of the 99% and they will use that money to buy goods and services. If there is demand for goods and services then companies will hire more people to meet that demand.

    The Romney plan allows companies to keep more of the revenue that comes in. But it doesn’t create demand for products. No wonder rich individuals want lower taxes. They want more money. No wonder foreign companies support Romney…. after all he did ship US jobs overseas when he was at Bain. It wouldn’t surprise me that under a Romney administration when US citizens have questions about their unemployment they will reach a call center in India.

    Being raised a Christian I was taught that it was my responsibility to help the less fortunate and help people who were suffering. The rich already had money and could buy food, clothes, shelter, etc. I was also taught that the pursuit of money was greed, one of the seven deadly sins. It seems to me that one party wants to allow corporations and wealthy to pursue more money and the other political party wants to help those in need.

    At any rate we know that the Bush and Republican policies led us into the Great Recession. I don’t want a repeat. Blame Obama for being too in bed with Wall Street and others… (and it’s fair, I have the same issue) but I know we’re not going over the edge of the cliff, as we almost did under Bush. Romney in my mind is Bush redux.

    http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/.....mists.aspx

  19. stockboy

    Interesting article. Thanks.

  20. The_Ohioan, you’re welcome.

  21. Brava, Dr E.

Submit a Comment